Phoenix City Councilman Sal DiCiccio is accusing Dustin Gardiner, a writer at the Arizona Republic, of misleading the voters on the effects of Prop 487. The proposition would change the city’s retirement system from a defined benefit system, and put a stop to pension spiking by implementing limits on the pension benefits available to current employees.
According to DiCiccio, “One writer at the AZ Republic wrote 3 stories about police and fire being affected by Prop 487. The problem is that the stories were misleading and the reporter knew they were not correct. The most important question needing to be debated is whether the city can opt out of PSPRS. On Sept 10, I contacted the paper letting them know I and staff had an extensive conversation with the outside attorney. A key point from that extensive conversation was that it would be virtually impossible to opt out of the state retirement plan for police and fire as there is no mechanism allowing any city to opt out. This was later verified by the attorney representing the labor unions and those opposed to the initiative. What does this all mean? It means that police and fire will NOT be covered by this initiative. Period.”
DiCiccio says he has “asked the Arizona Republic for a fact check on this issue. A fact check before people starting turning in their ballots so that people can have the facts.”
Diciccio questions why the Republic would “not set the record straight so people can make an informed decision.”
Rather than set the record straight, Gardiner opted to “mock” a recent letter DiCiccio wrote, in which he laid the maneuvers by Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton. “Say what you want about me, but verify the facts. What they will find is that they wrote 3 stories about an issue that will never happen under 487.”
In DiCiccio’s open letter, the Councilman informs the public that the “fire fighter union along with Mayor Stanton added the words “Police officer and Fire Fighter” to the ballot description,” so that they “could get the sympathy of the public for our dedicated police officers.”
In the letter DiCiccio denounced the “campaign of disinformation,” and effort to “scare the families of our dedicated police.” DiCiccio wrote, “Disgusting is what it was.”
According to DiCiccio, “The fire fighter union had to add police in order to move the electorate-police are the only ones that move voters. Fire Fighters don’t. But, by adding police the fire fighters created undue stress for the families of our police.”
DiCiccio alleges that the fire fighter union added the language for political reasons, but “the ballot language-which has no legal impact on the actual initiative. The initiative clearly states police and fire are excluded.”
“So, this was the first time in city history a ballot description was changed for political reasons,” writes DiCiccio. “It was the first time Phoenix went to the same level as Venezuela in their elections.”
DiCiccio believes that should the editors look at the situation they “will find is that they knew this in advance, and most importantly they will find they helped give out misleading information to the public. A request for a fact check on the issue is not an argument for or against 487, but an argument for ensuring that the public has all the facts so they can make up their own minds on whether any city can opt out of the state retirement system,” concludes DiCiccio.